re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

by DRC

Mar. 30, 2011 9:36 am

If you insist upon identifying with the NRA poop on guns and the Constitution, go ahead. But stop all the hyperbole about sensible criticism of the gun culture and the skewed politics it drives. I have posted many times in the past about how good hunters and sport shooters have every right to their sport. I think it is obvious that the politics of gun ownership includes a highly reactionary element of fear-ridden racists and militia machos. I see America having a different attitude about guns than other countries, and it is that which worries me.

I also am willing to have an honest discussion of the history of the Second Amendment. It was not based on the laws of France or the theories of personal self-defense. It was about whether or not to have a standing army, and having decided against it, how to have a "well regulated militia." The rest is politics, not Constitutional history.

Did I not recognize regional and community differences that would allow different policies to be adopted locally? Did I not acknowledge that the access to gun ownership would be democratic and require some serious problem to deny the right to ownership? I just don't accept the ontological right to bear arms without some demonstration of competence and responsibility. Like for driving a car.

I don't know why this makes you so angry, but you need to reflect on that. And maybe even get help. Insulting people who are tired of mass murder with militarized weaponry when we suggest that hunting and sport shooting require none of this firepower; or who question why every nutcase is given the cultural boost to embrace a very powerful symbol and tool, is not a sign of civil maturity.

Of course your post is offensive from start to finish. I think you make my case so well that I will let it be. What spew!

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Not factual. Several thousand people each year prevent harm to their loved ones, themselves, and/or their property and give criminals some of what they deserve, simply because they own and know how to use firearms. This isn't something I've made up; nor is it NRA propaganda. Documented police reports verify it. If those same individuals had not had firearms at the right time, they would have simply been victims.

Point Five. Local control is ignored by the "gun rights goons" who would make Washington DC the same as rural Georgia. The hypocrisy is amazing. Urban gun laws make sense.

They don't make sense if they have the same end result/effect as outright bans. Some do, but politicians won't say that because they don't want to be called banners. How do local regs so draconian that their result is no different than bans differ from bans, in reality? The answer, of course, is that they don't.

Finally, as many of us have said over and over again, we are not against hunting or sport shooting. Some animal rights people will oppose any killing of animals, but most of us understand good hunting practices and respect those who practice it. We see a lot of the alcohol related incidents, however. And we do not see much admirable gun safety education or public policy advocacy from the gun industry front pr artists.

Love or hate the NRA, it has long offered a high-quality shooting education program for young people, taught by certified firearms instructors. It's called the Eddie Eagle program. But if you mention it around anybody from the hysterical anti-gun, pro-ban crowd, they practically run screaming into the night and call for the excoriation of anybody who even brings it up. Rational?

Alcohol? Most genuine hunters don't drink and hunt; nor do they hunt with the dummies who do combine guns and booze. Most of the time, the latter are comprised of the once or twice a year hunters who treat it as casually as they would playing cards at home. Most genuine hunters and sportsmen, as well as most other sane people in the shooting sports, have no trouble seeing drunkards in the woods with guns treated harshly by ticketing from game wardens. I don't hunt, but I target shoot, and I think they should have their guns confiscated until they dry out and be refused hunting licenses for, say, five years on the first offense, followed by permanent revocation of hunting privileges upon the second. Also, lots of accidents are caused by people who don't remain familiar with their firearms through constant handling and shooting, so they get clumsy with their own guns on the few occasions they do use them. Most other regulations be damned, but I'd like to see all gun owners be required to go to ranges and practice four to six times each year; that would eliminate most accidents caused by loss of familiarity with people's own guns.

It's not an ideal world, of course, but if it were, the fools who hunt drunk should all be required to do it in the same geographic areas. That way, they wouldn't endanger sane hunters and they could earn their well-deserved Darwin Awards.

I would hope that Progressives who like to hunt or shoot would become advocates for better practice within the sports. I would like to have the lies about liberals and guns stopped.

I agree that both sides of the issue should drop the hyperbole and stick to facts. Too often, both sides want to refuse to acknowledge facts that don't coincide with their preconceived positions.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

First, I was not angry but deeply offended. And it made great NRA propaganda. Since I have not read any of your previous posts, I took this one at face value. I admit I over reacted to what I quite frankly perceived as an ad hominem attack a large part of mainstream America. If you are saying that your post was sensible criticism, I disagree. You called Mr. Heller and his council “gun goons.” You made references to phallic symbols. You used the subcultural slurs. I did not do any of these. At no time did I attack you or anyone with legitimate concerns. Paul Helmke does not count as explained in post number six. I only pointed a couple of examples of hypocrisy and crimes committed while answering your points. If I insulted Mr. Rowen or the body guard, then the Boston Globe and Washington Post were guilty of libel. I will now answer your reply point by point.

I do not identify with NRA “poop” or anyone else's. I do my own research and I let the chips fall where they may. Google Scholar is very handy. More on that later.

The reactionaries and racists you describe make up less than one percent, the media likes to put them on camera. They are not in charge and do more harm than good. Skewed politics works both ways. When Brady an CAGV uses loaded language, fear mongering, and falsifies or distorts data that is easily verifiable also prevents meaningful dialog. They are in charge of your side. I would not describe them as progressive in general although progressives tend to go along with it. I tend to agree with sociologist Richard Kessler that your side is the more conservative and reactionary on this issue. But that is a different conversation.

The history of the second amendment makes an interesting intellectual exercise, that is kind of it. So is diagramming that one compound sentence. The important point is that out of the seven SCOTUS decisions, none supported the collective rights theory. The 19th Century cases upheld basic local regulations like conceal carry and licenses an one ruled against private armies.

The odd one was US v Miller in 1938 concerning an unregistered short barreled (less than 18 inches) shotgun under the National Firearms Act of 1934. FDR's solicitor general used the collective rights theory. Since Mr. Miller passed away, there was no opposing council. The court ruled neither way. They ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a constitutional protected weapon because it (in their opinion) lacked military utility. The two recent cases affirmed the individual rights theory under the second and fourteenth amendments but of course allows reasonable regulations just as Miller v Texas (1894) upholding the state's licensing scheme that existed then. So, I would rather talk policy.

Please reread what I said the Enlightenment. I did not say that 2A was based on French law. Let me clarify. The French revolution came afterward. My point was both revolutions were products of the enlightenment. One of the pillars of the Enlightenment according to John Locke is the natural right of self-defense. That influence is reflected in Jefferson's and Paine's writings. It is also reflected in Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

How do you define sensible Both sides are for what they define as sensible. Even the NRA agrees with sensible like convicted felons, minors, etc. I did not say that DC and NYC should be the same as Vermont and Wyoming. We agree on that. I simply pointed out the flaws and injustices of both of those two urban jurisdictions. Maybe NYC and California should be free to keep their may issue systems, but there needs to be nonpolitical oversight to limit those permits based on genuine need and qualification regardless of social class or political connections. The single mother who gets death threats from an abusive ex-husband should be head of the line, get buying tips, and the number to a good instructor. Don Imus should not have a gun let alone a concealed carry permit.

“I just don't accept the ontological right to bear arms without some demonstration of competence and responsibility. Like for driving a car.” It is much better when you put it that way.

Then you take a step back.

I don't know why this makes you so angry, but you need to reflect on that. And maybe even get help. Insulting people who are tired of mass murder with militarized weaponry when we suggest that hunting and sport shooting require none of this firepower;

Like I said before, I was not angry. I was offended by a post that read like a Rush Limbaugh script, but only I was the “other.” If you want to see some angry people who need help, here are a couple of Think Progress threads you should read. Now imagine these “thoughtful discussions” were directed at you. I was making calm dissent. Most of what I got in return were vicious ad hominem attacks. I was not even agreeing with the Arizona thing. I left the South Carolina one alone. Making “suggestions” on subjects you know nothing about to people who many on your side expresses hatred for gets you no where. Nor does it help when the leaders are prohibitionists with an extreme ideology willing to have the ends jusify the means. The United Methodist Church formed what is now the CSGV (formaly known as National Coalition to Ban Handguns) in 1975 to avoid losing their tax exempt status. Brady gets their funding from a couple of rich people and foundations like the Joyce Foundation. They have every right to, but is hardly grassroots. Love them or hate them, the NRA and allies are grass roots. Four million plus members plus a huge chunk of America is pretty grassroots. The manufactures have the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institue (SAAMI). Besides, all of the manufactures in the US (or even North America) combined does not even come close to anything to the Fortune 500.

or who question why every nutcase (sic) is given the cultural boost to embrace a very powerful symbol and tool, is not a sign of civil maturity.

Here you took a couple more steps back. Being an INTP, I have a hard time understanding it so I will leave it alone.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

I do think that if Snyder get's his way and privatizes the local governments and services, Xe (Blackwater) or whoever will be knocking on or kicking down Thom's brother's (and all other known gun owners) door just after the net goes down. Autocrats fear both the pen and the sword. If that happens, the blowback will be huge. Brady will be associated with Xe, the NRA will purge the right wingers like Ted Nugent and Wayne P. Then we just have to finish putting the FDR coalition back together.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

While this unwashed savage figures out the quote formatting, I crashed my reply to DRC in post #42, so I must redo it. I must be confusing my computer with some organ like one of my ears.

DRC:

I could be polite and say it is a fine example of 21st century cultural imperialism, or I can just be blunt and tell you that your post is so offensive, bigoted, and ignorant that it belongs in the cesspool that is free republic instead of here. In fact, if you change the words "gun owner" to "black people" or "Muslim" it would be a script for Rush Limbaugh. What's the matter with Kansas? Look in the mirror.You are not driving in fog, you are driving in the dark. Turn your lights on.

Point one:You are only half right. It is also an individual right. It is based on what John Locke described as the natural right of self defense. It is not only in the second amendment but also in the French Declaration of the rights of Man and the Citizen. The court upheld the individual rights theory in the 19th and 21st centuries. As for you being scared shitless, your irrational fears are not my problem.

Point two: Really? That is worthy of discussion. Clinton's CDC, Obama's DOJ, and peer reviewed research by professional criminologists puts a some doubt in your statement and destroys anything Brady and company puts out.

Point three: This makes no sense at all. But then, I am just one of those stupid savages that can not tell a piece of metal from a body part. Sorry that I am your white man's burden.

Point four: Sorry, my side is not preventing reasonable discussion. We supported and helped create many of the reasonable regulations that currently exist. What's her face in Nevada speaks for herself, not for me, and not for anyone I know. The problem is on your side. It starts with the disinformation and basic dishonest from the prohibitionist groups that feed your talking points and ends with the ignorance, arrogance, and bigotry displayed in your post poisoning the well. Know what you are talking about and talk to me with respect and as an equal, we can have a reasoned discussion on a proper and workable gun policy. Come to me attitude of your post while parroting Brady talking points, and you will get the contempt and vigorous opposition that you deserve.

Point five: The DC ban was totally unreasonable. If it's goal was crime control, it failed. The “gun goon” was Mr. Heller, a private security guard, who hired his own lawyer because he felt it was wrong that he could carry a gun to protect his employer's money but could not have one to protect his home and family. I find it odd that liberals would have an issue with that. Of course, if he were wealthy columnist gun control advocate like Carl Rowen, who used his illegal pistol to shoot at some kid in his yard. No he did not go to jail. That is hypocrisy. NYC's may issue system, like may issue systems throughout our history, getting a permit is not based on need or qualification. Campaign contributers and celebrities get them regardless of need or qualification. The rest of us do not under any circumstance. One egregious example is Don Imus. He has a concealed carry permit for NYC. His admitted alcohol and cocaine addiction also makes him a prohibited person under the Gun Control Act of 1968. If you are a New Yorker, and you sell him a gun after reading this, you just committed a federal felony. Instead of hiring private investigators to play James O;Keefe, (which may include breaking various state laws and the Gun Control Act of 1968) Bloomburg needs to clean his own house. Of course, NYC has had that problem since 1911. Urban gun laws work only for the rich, well connected, and the criminal. Want more hypocrisy? On January 7th, 1986 Charles J. Stein was arrested by DC police for trying to enter the senate office building with a pistol, two submachine guns, and 150 rounds of ammuntion. He was arrested for violating DC law. Right wing crazy bent on mass murder? No. Ted Kennedy's personal body guard. The article did not say if the machine guns were registered (which includes a four to six month background check) or if they were he had BATF's permission to take them to DC from California. If no to either of those, he violated the National Firearms Act of 1934. Instead of going to prison, Kennedy pressured Ed Meese to get him released. As much as I admire his work on health care and other good works, still can't let that slide.

Point six:

“While prohibition does not work, sensible regulation of a privilege like driving licenses could go a long way toward improving our culture of the gun. If it were considered a privilege rather than an extension of the groin, possessing and caring for a gun might become a matter of serious responsibility. As a symbol of “manhood” it gets confused with all the wrong things.”

I addressed the first two sentences above, so I will not repeat myself. As for the last sentence, I respect Thom too much to type the words I really want to use. So I will simply say that it is as ignorant as it is offensive. A lot of NRA propaganda is simply copy and paste scribblings like this. It has been working them for over 40 years. Many of these beer swilling savages are union members, blue collar workers, and small farmers. Besides insulting 40 percent of Americans, you also called a good part of the Democratic Party's base a bunch of degenerates. Good going. You also so insulted about 30 percent of all Candians, 52 percent of Finns. You get the picture.

Define sensible regulation. Everyone is for it, just means different things different people.Finally, the only thing worth answering in the first sentences is simply remind you that your “we” has no credibility. You are condencending and parrot propaganda that can be easily be debunked. We do. You either demean it or ignore it. NICS was our idea. So was many parts of our current federal gun control laws. Take gun safety education for example. When the NRA created its Eddie Eagle campaign Brady, CSGV and others hysterically screeched that “the NRA was teaching kids how to use guns in our schools.” Never mind that it is simply “don't touch it, tell an adult.” Whatever education the shooting sports community creates, Paul Helmke with his plastic Pat Robertson smile will be on the TV ranting about how we are encouraging more guns in the hands of the irresponsible. Helmke and Pat Robertson have two things in common: the grin when they lie, and are tied with Newt as being my least favorite Republicans. Instead of Eddie Eagle, how about using the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council's Billy Hook comic books in elementary schools. The kids will learn not only the usual stuff but also how to clear the gun to ensure it is unloaded. Oh yeah, it also teaches that shooting is a good wholesome sport for children.

So conservative and moderate gun owners are all drunken savages and you think it is my (still only half civilized) duty to teach them proper manners? Who are you, the British Raj? I have been around the shooting sports and guns my entire life and your depiction is not only false, but is on the same level their racist attitudes about the East Indians or the old south about African Americans. I would like to see the lies about guns and gun owners stop. I would like to see liberals stop assuming everything the NRA says is fake and all things Brady is gospel. I would like to have a discussion with someone who actually does their own research instead of blindly follows Brady propaganda. It is not that hard to do, just go to CDC and DOJ statistics. You can email me at garyej@gmail.com

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

The first paragraph is true for most people, but not everyone. It is one of those culture war things. In this case, it is what John Locke described as the natural right of self defense vs "all life is sacred" defending oneself is immoral. In fact, the Coalition Against Gun Violence (once known as as National Coalition to Ban Handguns) is an outgrouth of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church. The Presbyetarian Church USA advocates federal banning pistols because they are designed for self defense. As someone who believes in the Enlightenment, husband and father of a daughter, I find these these views as beyond repulsive. But then what do I know, I'm just one of those inbred hicks.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Look one thing that is being lost in all this is the fact that many voters on the right are one issue voters. They are voting republican right now because they own guns, their fathers/mothers own guns, their grandfathers own guns....and they want to keep them. For better or worse we are a gun loving country (in my view) hell all our heroes on tv and in the movies used them. Many of our Presidents loved to skeet shoot even if they did not hunt. It is an ingrained part of our culture by now. We need to face this and move on.

Like the original poster of this thread I believe we have a right to own them and this does not stop me from being a card carrying member of the progressive wing of the democratic party. Further wouldn't it be smarter for Dem's to embrace gun ownership and pick up the one issue voters of the republican party? Me thinks there are quite a few.

Guns are not going to go away any time soon. They have been around our country for how long? Why not help out our mutual causes by increasing our voting numbers by embracing reasonable and responsible laws regarding gun ownership.

Thank you midnight for your honest post.

And thank you, Mick. Your reply to spot on. As long as I see the Left trying to further infringe my 2A right, I will vote Repbulican. The Right is destroying this country with the tax breaks for richy rich, and pro-business de-regulation, etc. I refuse to give my freedoms away, and I intend on keeping what I have to defend them (myself if I have to) and not worry about reliance on some "milita"

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

First, 2-a came after what you describe, an argument could be made that section would be repealed or on different levels. That is the job for constituional scholors and military historian. If that is the case, then the empire is unconstitutional and should be dismantled. Also, the word regulated did not mean the same as it does today. In modern English it would read "a well equipped militia." At the very least, learn period word usage.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

On somethings I make Thom look Republican, but you are totally right on. Showing my age. The Brady Bunch are all Republicans. They duped enough liberals to go along with them to screw things up. Paul Helmke rivals Newt as my least favorite Republican. Most of California's strict gun laws were brought to you by Reagan. You are the perfect example that I use about the FDR coalition being busted by sububanite "liberals" who are just as authoritarian, just on different subjects. Check out this written by this historian see what I mean. If online forums are any indication, most of us liberals here in the hinterland oppose the party establishment and talking heads. I grew up in the sticks shooting etc. Go to Democratic Underground's "guns" forum. Think Progress, not so much but they seem like irrational antis who salviate over each tragedy and rarely have anything worth mentioning to add.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

There are more of us on the left and center than you think. I think current federal regulations are fine, all else is theater and no criminologist will tell you gun bans or registration will reduce crime. Vermont is safer than Japan, even with gun laws that make Arizona look like New York. Our problem is gangsters killing other gangsters in the cities that are drug hubs. Gun laws will not change that. Legalize pot. I never smoked, I'm allergic to the stuff but I have a problem with letting pediphiles and sociopaths loose to make room for some kid caught with a couple of joints.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Well written? Change the words "gun owner" to "black people" or "Muslim" it would be a script for Rush Limbaugh. Wow two bigots in our midst.

False comparison much? One is an ascriptive characteristic of a human being, the other is a piece of property that has been specifically manufactured to kill things, including people. How in the hell can you even perceive these as the same thing?

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

by DRC

Apr. 10, 2011 9:42 am

Hey ah2, the point of this thread is why we ought not even step into this swamp, and I think I have produced enough stupid response to make my case. Or, let's call it very intelligent responses to make an ideological case and ignore how the gun issue works symbolically because they are the good gun owners and users. I can understand why good drivers might be offended by having laws that protect us from bad drivers, but most understand that the privilege to employ a deadly weapon is not just a matter of human rights. It involves real responsibilities, and accountabilities.

I would also think that those gun owners who respected the weapon as a tool for hunting or recreation would object to the macho insecurity that washes all over the NRA and the politics of the Second Amendment. Including the Supreme's establishment of a radical reading of the Second Amendment.

The French Enlightenment and personal rights of protection was not about modern weaponry. If you want to have a musket or a flintlock for protection, you will not be a danger as a mass shooter. I think we can discuss "protection," but what the news out here in Oregon keeps me aware of is the number of tragic hunting accidents and guns in homes used wrongly. Again, we may be talking about a more rural issue, although those living in the modern urban jungle may "feel" safer with a gun. I don't think they are, and I doubt statistics developed in a polemic.

What I definitely do not want is any vigilante stepping up to save my without command and control. The wrong person gets shot too often.

What bothers me about Garyej's reaction is that he identified with the macho insecure being attacked by my post. It was not aimed at him, but at those who make the gun issue into an emotional reaction about "freedom" instead of a rational discussion of public policy about the possession and use of dangerous weapons. If you think those pistol packing teabaggers were bringing a rational discussion of public policy rather than their groins to the party, excuse me for missing it.

If my post feeds the NRA bile, their reactionary culture is the problem I say it is. I know about Eddie Eagle, and I am for good gun education and training for those who want to use them. Essential. If the NRA could return to its roots with hunters and sports shooters and get over the fantasy that our American Liberty is guaranteed by gun possession, we could have the rational discussion and policies we want without the absurd political reaction on the Right.

This is why I don't raise the issue. It is too toxic because it has been deeply distorted and made into an emotional hot button. There is almost no reality to the case. Obama ain't trying to take away your guns, and the laws may be clumsy and hard to enforce, so let's improve them. If we had real cooperation from gun owners we could cool the culture and retire the hot button.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Easy. He was using "gun owner" not "gun". He used inaccurate negative stereotypes to describe an caricature, and tried to pass it off as reality, of a group of people or a culture that he has no knowledge of, and has distain for. That is the dictionary definition of a bigot. The fact that this group of people prefers punching holes in paper than club a white ball and would rather eat organic lean meat over the chemical loaded from a factory farm is beside the point.

Granted, it is a respectable bigotry (to many on the left) but it is still bigotry.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

by snowmaniac

Apr. 10, 2011 10:41 am

There is another way to interrupt wording in 2nd amendment that may have been lost as society urbanized and forgot its history. “right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia”. At the time this was written a gun was a tool .Most people lived on farms carved out of newly developed wilderness on land taken from Native Americans, generally by force. Everyone had a gun. The well-regulated militia line may have been about guaranteeing states they could form a state militia. Remember at the time America was founded there was a huge fear it would end up like Europe in general, England in particular. There was fear of an overriding central authority usurping “pheasants” rights. People wanted the guaranteed right to organize and defend themselves against this possible tyranny. It was still fresh in their minds.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

You still don't get it. Your side's incendary language, lack of knowledge, and intellectual dishonesty (on the part of the Brady et al. where you get your talking points.) is the problem. That is why your side has little popular support even among the left other than the few talk show hosts.

The NRA supported most of the current federal regulations including parts of the Brady Bill.

Assuming that I am a "tea bagger" shows your ignorance. There is more of us on the left than you think.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Easy. He was using "gun owner" not "gun". He used inaccurate negative stereotypes to describe an caricature, and tried to pass it off as reality, of a group of people or a culture that he has no knowledge of, and has distain for. That is the dictionary definition of a bigot. The fact that this group of people prefers punching holes in paper than club a white ball and would rather eat organic lean meat over the chemical loaded from a factory farm is beside the point.

Granted, it is a respectable bigotry (to many on the left) but it is still bigotry.

Fair enough but that was one argument. My argument had nothing to do with the owner - it was focused on the gun and policy/legal considerations. You can't discount all calls for gun legislation as "bigoted" simply because of one person's inflamatory rhetoric. Anyway, gun ownership is still a choice, not a skin color - very different.

@DRC: given this understandable response, this is one place where I actually have disagreed with your statements. I personally believe that the rhetoric used by the NRA does not, in fact, reflect the mentality of the typical gun owner but they tend to jump on the band wagon because of interest convergence - particularly when the liberal counterargument is stated like you have made your posts in this particular thread.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

OK, change skin color to religion. Then it is choice vs choice. Like I answered to DRC, it is not a strictly left/right issue. There are more of us on the left, like me, and the middle than both sides realize. Brady is still a mostly GOP member organization funded by a couple of foundations and rich people. Same with their allies. The NRA and others have a good sized grass roots machine as well as membership. Forty percent of Americans including what once was the Democratic Party's base, is a serious grassroots force. I am all for talking policy, I only ask that your side learn the current federal laws, and something on the subject.

The problem with calls for more gun legistation are these:

They don't solve any problems. It is kind of like trying to curb drunk driving by making it harders for tea totlers to buy cars. Yesterday's reasonable and sane are now insanely lax. Today's sane, will be dredfully lax tomorrow.

They are based on emotion. They are knee jerk reactions to rare occurances or political upheaval. That is true everywhere. Makes nice theater, but that is it. It also serves to keep the FDR coaltion fractured. Is that why many of these groups are founded and mostly staffed by Republicans? Of course the NRA ignores that, since the leadership has been taken over ideologues that are more concerned with lining their own pockets and pushing the radical right wing machine.

No one has shown how Heller is radical. There was no precident that was over turned. Although Heller was 5-4, if you read closely, the individual theory was 9-0. The vast majority of legal scholorship since 1980 has supported the standard (individual) right. The logic of why the National Firearms Act of 1934 put heavy taxes instead banning, supports that.

The peer reviewed criminology science and history is not on your side. Gun laws have nothing to do with Europe (many do not really have stricter laws than we do, just different.) The strict vs lax parts of each kind of cancel each other out.) or Canada or anywhere else. Same goes for the NRA bringing up Swizerland. The murder rates were the same before the laws as after. Vermont is safer than Japan. In fact, many of the states with lax gun laws have lower murder rates than most of Europe. El Paso had two murders in 2010, Cuidad Juarez had 130.

Everyone is for control. Well OK, maybe not some libertarians. They are greatly out numbered by prohibitionists. The problem is being held responsable to other people's crimes and irrational fears. Brady and the NRA were on the same side on one issue, but were attacked by both the left and right. Groups like Brady depend on the average persons lack of knowledge of guns in general and current federal regulations. The plastic gun hoax, which only existed in a Mel Gibson movie, and calling some semi automatic rifles as "assault weapons" (which is a propaganda buzz word created by Josh Sugarmann, learning from Frank Luntz, to get people to confuse these with automatic weapons, aka machine guns.) are perfect examples. Another is the "gun show loophole". FFL holders must follow the law regardless where they are. A private seller, is barred from using NICS. Assuming I had the phone number, I would have to give the center a FFL number. Saying something like "I'm a responsable person who whats to know who I am selling too but not a dealer", you get hung up on. I think we agree that should be fixed without violating privacy laws. They also depend on you not verifing their claims from objective sources like DOJ, CDC, BATF, or INTERPOL or much in the way of critical thinking. Not that he NRA is that much better, so I check out their claims.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

by scriber1

Apr. 10, 2011 3:27 pm

Hi Midnight, the reason I am for restricting gun use is that not everyone has sense. People often feel braver when they have a gun, they use it in a rush or in the heat of emotion and end up doing something they later regret. Sometimes those regrets are irreversable. For example, there has been a recent law (I think in Texas), where people can bring guns to work in their car and not get fired for it. Now, if a guy has a jerk for a boss, and I can assure you that the jerk bank is plenty full, don't you think that in the heat of the moment, when an abusive boss says something crazy to a working person who is already teetering on the edge with stress, that that person wont in a moment of lunacy go get his gun and shoot? What if the person receives a pink slip? We've already seen shootings at the work place when it was illegal for people to have guns in your car. nhat do you think will happen now that it's permissible to have the gun in your car, a few steps away? Guns are for hunting (if you're into that sort of thing), and wars. We have a police force that is supposed to take care of those of us without guns and enforce our laws, insuring that guns aren't about willy nilly. Seems like a good idea to me. Unless you want to live in the wild west.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Quote scriber1:Hi Midnight, the reason I am for restricting gun use is that not everyone has sense.

No, not everyone has sense, but I do. Accordingly, I think the idea that the whole platoon does push-ups when the one without sense screws up should end the day after graduation from boot camp.

[quoteWe have a police force that is supposed to take care of those of us without guns and enforce our laws, insuring that guns aren't about willy nilly. Seems like a good idea to me. Unless you want to live in the wild west.[/quote]

Yes, we have police forces. Most cops I know believe that honest citizens should have the right to possess firearms, because they know that in the event of societal breakdown for any reason, they can't be everywhere at once; that honest people won't misuse their guns even when there are no police around; and that private firearms ownership is often the last line of defense for honest people in such scenarios. Note that I'm not at all referring to revolution or keeping the Federal government honest, but rather, to situations like those that developed after Katrina or in recent earthquakes scattered around the globe. Human nature is what it is, and disasters don't always draw people together for mutual assistance. Oftentimes, they bring out the worst in the worst people.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

OK, change skin color to religion. Then it is choice vs choice. Like I answered to DRC, it is not a strictly left/right issue. There are more of us on the left, like me, and the middle than both sides realize. Brady is still a mostly GOP member organization funded by a couple of foundations and rich people. Same with their allies. The NRA and others have a good sized grass roots machine as well as membership. Forty percent of Americans including what once was the Democratic Party's base, is a serious grassroots force. I am all for talking policy, I only ask that your side learn the current federal laws, and something on the subject.

This also is not a really great comparison because religion is closely intertwined with racial identity and cultural geography. Most people end up being the religion that was their parents. Furthermore religion is a cultural practice, not a material good. While one could make convincing arguments for how religion does act as a primer for violence, its intended purpose is not that. Guns sole purpose for existence is to injure, maim, or kill.

The problem with calls for more gun legistation are these:

They don't solve any problems. It is kind of like trying to curb drunk driving by making it harders for tea totlers to buy cars. Yesterday's reasonable and sane are now insanely lax. Today's sane, will be dredfully lax tomorrow.

Seriously? This seems to be about as logical as the "If we allow gay marraige people will want to marry goats" argument.

Interesting that you brought up drunk driving. You know it used to be that most states had a drinking age of about 17 or 18? And that changed during the 1970s and 80s why? Oh yeah, because the highest death rates for drunk drivers occured between the ages of 17-21. These policies have been tweeked over the years and DO create positive outcomes.

They are based on emotion. They are knee jerk reactions to rare occurances or political upheaval. That is true everywhere. Makes nice theater, but that is it. It also serves to keep the FDR coaltion fractured. Is that why many of these groups are founded and mostly staffed by Republicans? Of course the NRA ignores that, since the leadership has been taken over ideologues that are more concerned with lining their own pockets and pushing the radical right wing machine.

No they aren't. They are based on empirical evidence. While politicians may use emotion to sell policies to the public, policy makers are looking at statistics - death rates, violent crime rates, the life of guns as they are bought and sold, etc. Just as the drinking age restrictions above.

No one has shown how Heller is radical. There was no precident that was over turned. Although Heller was 5-4, if you read closely, the individual theory was 9-0. The vast majority of legal scholorship since 1980 has supported the standard (individual) right. The logic of why the National Firearms Act of 1934 put heavy taxes instead banning, supports that.

The peer reviewed criminology science and history is not on your side. Gun laws have nothing to do with Europe (many do not really have stricter laws than we do, just different.) The strict vs lax parts of each kind of cancel each other out.) or Canada or anywhere else. Same goes for the NRA bringing up Swizerland. The murder rates were the same before the laws as after. Vermont is safer than Japan. In fact, many of the states with lax gun laws have lower murder rates than most of Europe. El Paso had two murders in 2010, Cuidad Juarez had 130.

No idea why you brought Heller up because I didn't mention him. Using comparisons from state to state or states to other countries or other countries to the US are more complicated than you are making it seem. It seems to me trying to compare Vermont to Japan is simply a false analogy. You have to consider not only the policies but ownership rates and population density amongst other factors.

Switzerland and US are generally a good comparison because both our cultural history and our ownership rates are quite similar. Yet, their gun related death rates are far far lower than ours. And it is quite true that their restrictions ARE more tight than ours. I am not going to read all of that Kleck book but I looked him up and he seemed to focus more on the effect of severity of punishment rather than the policy mechanism being used (IE: bans as opposed to mandatory safety training and licensure, for example). Thus, the analysis seems incomplete to me. Correct me if I am wrong and you have actually read his material.

Everyone is for control. Well OK, maybe not some libertarians. They are greatly out numbered by prohibitionists. The problem is being held responsable to other people's crimes and irrational fears. Brady and the NRA were on the same side on one issue, but were attacked by both the left and right. Groups like Brady depend on the average persons lack of knowledge of guns in general and current federal regulations. The plastic gun hoax, which only existed in a Mel Gibson movie, and calling some semi automatic rifles as "assault weapons" (which is a propaganda buzz word created by Josh Sugarmann, learning from Frank Luntz, to get people to confuse these with automatic weapons, aka machine guns.) are perfect examples. Another is the "gun show loophole". FFL holders must follow the law regardless where they are. A private seller, is barred from using NICS. Assuming I had the phone number, I would have to give the center a FFL number. Saying something like "I'm a responsable person who whats to know who I am selling too but not a dealer", you get hung up on. I think we agree that should be fixed without violating privacy laws. They also depend on you not verifing their claims from objective sources like DOJ, CDC, BATF, or INTERPOL or much in the way of critical thinking. Not that he NRA is that much better, so I check out their claims.

I think this is just propaganda. I really don't think there are as many prohibitionists as you might assume or certainly that the NRA projects there are. I think most liberals and certainly moderates are fine with gun ownership but support general regulatory policies which help solving gun related crime (like mandatory registration and sales documentation) and targeted at guns specifically designed for killing human beings (IE - assault rifles, and the like).

In short, outside of current federal regulations, there is no compelling state interest for more. Your turn.

This is again a false logic argument. No one claims that gun bans or regulations will ever completely eliminate gun related deaths. Things like you posted above will always happen. That is not a valid measure of policy success or failure. The question should be the effect a policy has on the rate of such instances and whether that effect justifies the time, money, and energy put into the policy implementation (setting aside for a moment ethical questions regarding liberties and rights which is a different discussion).

As for the "compelling interest" claim, I think this is based on some skewed information. Anyway, I live in a "hunting state". I get it. I know most gun owners are generally good honest folks. However, I think there is a lot of carelessness out there. I think mandatory licensing and safety training would work to reduce accidental deaths. I think that mandatory record keeping of all sales would help police do their jobs - most guns sold illegally are sold legally first and if there is a paper trail, it is a lot easy for officers to solve violent, gun-related crime. Beyond that, I haven't called for any bans or restrictions. The only other thing I may have mentioned would be something like a mandatory purchase of a trigger lock or gun safe with a firearm purchase.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Thank you for sharing. Please clarify, was the gun in car against the law, or does the law forbid employers barring guns in cars? Important distinction. If the first, you may have a point, although I still disagree. If the second, I would have to question your liberal/progressive cred by supporting corporate power over the individual. The building yes, parking lot in own car, no.

Slight history lesson, the wild west was not really that wild, other than in the movies. Little House on the Prarie and Gunsmoke was more accurate than the B-westerns. Check out some old pics of typical normal folks from that era, you will find that they normally were not armed. Dodge was safer than NYC. The difference is that the robbers and contract killers (which is what a gunfigher really was) in the west were romanticized. Texas, like most of the south, had stricter gun laws than today or the rest of the country for that matter. One of the few 2-A cases to go to SCOTUS was Texas vs Miller 1894 that upheld Texas licensing law at the time.

While the police are to enforce the law, they have no obligation to protect you. Also see Riss v New York. A woman with the stalking abusive ex husband is better off with a pistol than magically hoping the police will show up.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

by libertarian vot...

Apr. 10, 2011 8:40 pm

I'm impressed by all the research you all have apparently done (notwithstanding debate about its accuracy).

I've never understood how anyone could gloss over the word people in 2A, as if the government would find it necessary to write a special law giving ITSELF the right to self-defense and was merely guilty of a poor choice of words.

Garyej, I especially like your informed and measured responses--but I'd expect nothing less from a fellow INTP.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

Thank you for sharing. Please clarify, was the gun in car against the law, or does the law forbid employers barring guns in cars? Important distinction. If the first, you may have a point, although I still disagree. If the second, I would have to question your liberal/progressive cred by supporting corporate power over the individual. The building yes, parking lot in own car, no.

Slight history lesson, the wild west was not really that wild, other than in the movies. Little House on the Prarie and Gunsmoke was more accurate than the B-westerns. Check out some old pics of typical normal folks from that era, you will find that they normally were not armed. Dodge was safer than NYC. The difference is that the robbers and contract killers (which is what a gunfigher really was) in the west were romanticized. Texas, like most of the south, had stricter gun laws than today or the rest of the country for that matter. One of the few 2-A cases to go to SCOTUS was Texas vs Miller 1894 that upheld Texas licensing law at the time.

While the police are to enforce the law, they have no obligation to protect you. Also see Riss v New York. A woman with the stalking abusive ex husband is better off with a pistol than magically hoping the police will show up.

woah. gun law discussion aside I had not heard of those court cases. Thanks for bringing those to my attention.

re: Why Is there a Bias Against Guns?

skin color, religion, whatever is a red herring. I have yet to see any emperical evidence you claim. I have been looking for it. But I can tell you made zero effort in doing any serious research.

Since we seem to agree on most things, other than the edges, what exactly are we debating? We both support current federal regulations (although I would remove the mandatory min. sentences in GCA-68, for the same reason Jessie Jackson would.) We agree on safety. I don't know about where you live, but Wyoming has (or did before I enlisted) that all first time hunters had to go through a safety course before getting a first hunting license. I don't hunt anymore, so I don't know about Florida.

My point about the shopping center shooting was not to say repealing the National Firearms Act of 1934 is a good idea, which it is not, the point is that here Helmke would be on TV trying to exploit it claiming that it is the NRA's fault etc. Otherwise level headed liberal would be jumping on the bandwagon. Some conservatives would be too. I was attempting to point out false logic on the other side, it could very well be the case that I missed the mark.

I read Kleck's and a couple of others he wrote. I also read the peer review by a sociologist named Lawrance Ross. Like I said, double check sources and data. I go to the original source as much as possible. It seems that you do not. You missed some points, you are assuming that it is a right/left and that I am a conservative. like I pointed out before, the major gun control groups are founded, headed, and staffed by conservatives. Pete Shields was a DuPont executive and always described himself as a conservative. Joe McNamara is now working at the Hoover Inst. Helmke was a Republican mayor of Ft Wayne. Bloomburg is anti union and a plutocrat. I stand by what I said about the FDR coalition. Like I said, there are more lefties on my side than you think and moderates too. Ask Diane Feinstien about who was behind her recall while mayor when she wanted to ban handguns in SF. Not the NRA. Not from the right, unless they were so far to the left that they went full circle.

The assault weapon hysteria, plastic gun hoax, the "cop killer bullet" hoax. I was an adult then. I was raised by cops, ranchers, and hunters. I spent 21 years in the military, I know more about the subject you do.

You "think that this is propaganda" "you think there is" "I think your information is skewed" That is not evidence. That is not rebutting anything. Do some research on your own. You can even start with the links I put in other posts.

In your last paragraph, I can tell you have no idea how criminal investigations work. New Zealand discarded registration in the 1980s because it served no law enforcement value while costing a lot of money. Canada has its own problems with cost over runs, civil disobediance (unusual for them) and does nothing other than causing the Liberal Party to lose the rural vote and a majority.

You need to know this... Support for Donald Trump's campaign is still growing nationally, and in early primary states, but he's not just gaining support in early primary states. A new poll from Florida shows that Trump is leading Jeb by 6 percentage points - and he's leading Rubio by 16 points.